Free Everywhere, Exact on Trees: PPO's Dropped Correction Buys Sample Efficiency Under Aggressive Reuse
Not on the map. Why?
Abstract (arXiv)
Common policy improvement methods, including TRPO, PPO, and GRPO, estimate policy improvement under the behavioral policy's state-visitation distribution rather than the improved policy's own. The substitution makes the objective estimable from the behavioral policy's rollouts but adds a bias growing with policy divergence, hence the trust region or clip, and hence no reuse of a batch far off-policy. We show that under history-injective dynamics, where each state is reached by exactly one history, the dropped state-visitation ratio equals the product of per-step policy ratios along the sampled prefix, on every trajectory and not only in expectation. The ratio is therefore restored exactly, from log-probabilities PPO already computes. Autoregressive generation and canonical-order constructive optimization are both history-injective. The exact correction pays importance-sampling variance that grows with the horizon, so we generalize it to a one-parameter family with PPO (α=0) and the full correction (α=1) as endpoints: a single bias--variance knob. A gradient-level analysis of the unclipped surrogate identifies two channels the correction acts through and three conditions under which it carries signal; an enumerable testbed confirms the conditions' predictions. On hard credit-assignment scheduling tasks, a short corrected warmup with aggressive early sample reuse learns faster than PPO and than the same reuse uncorrected; the marginal gain grows with task difficulty (+0.02 to +0.09 learning-curve AUC), and the early win over PPO tracks the prefix bias that reuse incurs. A correction held throughout, or applied where clipping already contains the reuse bias, is null to harmful.
Key facts. No citing papers in the map yet (data through 7 Oct 2026). Builds on 15 of its 29 references that are in the map. First posted on arXiv 30 Sep 2026.
Builds on
15 of 29 references.
References · 15
- 2017Proximal Policy Optimization Algorithmscited by 14,441
- 2024DeepSeekMath: Pushing the Limits of Mathematical Reasoning in Open Language Modelscited by 8,851
- 2023Direct Preference Optimization: Your Language Model is Secretly a Reward Modelcited by 7,916
- 2024Qwen2.5 Technical Reportcited by 4,713
- 2015Trust Region Policy Optimizationcited by 2,503
- 2018IMPALA: Scalable Distributed Deep-RL with Importance Weighted Actor-Learner Architecturescited by 866
- 2018Attention, Learn to Solve Routing Problems!cited by 646
- 2016Neural Combinatorial Optimization with Reinforcement Learningcited by 600
- 2016Safe and Efficient Off-Policy Reinforcement Learningcited by 260
- 2018Breaking the Curse of Horizon: Infinite-Horizon Off-Policy Estimationcited by 226
- 2019Towards Optimal Off-Policy Evaluation for Reinforcement Learning with Marginalized Importance Samplingcited by 118
- 2018Policy Optimization via Importance Samplingcited by 47
Built on by
Not cited yet.
Similar, not cited
Close in wording, no citation either way
- 2026OR Else: A Differentiable Trust Region for Policy Optimization
- 2026OPTS-TTPO: Enhancing Finite-Sample Policy-Gradient Learning with Tree Search
- 2025Learning More with Less: A Dynamic Dual-Level Down-Sampling Framework for Efficient Policy Optimization
- 2025Understanding the Impact of Sampling Quality in Direct Preference Optimization
- 2026Success Conditioning as Policy Improvement: The Optimization Problem Solved by Imitating Success
- 2026Beyond Importance Sampling: Rejection-Gated Policy Optimization
- 2026Fine-Tuning on Self-Generated and Reward-Weighted Data: Learning Dynamics, Convergence Rates, and Benefits of Off-Policyness
- 2026Reusing Rollouts under Policy Lag: Prefix-Normalized Policy Optimization for LLM Reinforcement Learning